DeepSkyFrontier

"Civilization is tens of thousands of years old"... is incorrect. The earliest human civilization, according to non-fringe archeology, is about 7000 years old. All our understanding of the past is currently based on a single scientific philosophy: uniformitarianism. It's the only paradigm that science is allowed to hold, even if it's false, because the only evidence science is allowed to accommodate is that which is accessible in the present and which has, inevitably, been modified by time. If you pre-assume uniformitarianism, then you are forgiven for also assuming that nothing overly remarkable happened in the past- especially things that could tamper with your understanding of that same past. However, if just a couple of these artifacts are real (and this doesn't even examine anomalous appearances of human fossils in the "impossible past") then uniformitarianism is itself suspect. Why do people have an easier time believing in aliens than believing that we've founded all our science on a mistaken assumption? Simple: because it leaves people open to being broadsided by ideas they can't accept without changing another basic paradigm. Namely, that humans are morally meaningless because they are randomly generated, and not created by a (possibly) moral agent. Portions of the culture of science are now, and have long been, in a state of all out war against the idea of God as a basis for morality. In waging this war, they have argued their right to promote absolute hatred directly from their first principles of godlessness. Religion, even if it is provable as false in basis of fact, remains as the highest expression of genius (human or otherwise) for the simple fact that it defeats so much of what demolishes humanity. There are countless people that would, if they could, remove the belief in God from the world. To hold such a belief is profoundly naive and dangerous.